POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Insrtead you repeat stuff I have debunked backed with evidence and you provide a singular lack of support for your erroneous ideas as with this:

QUOTE

i have a little problem with the past predictions of oceans rising. (since the '60's!)They haven't.

The reason that you see lower tides in your local is because the land is rising as the Pacific plate subducts beneath, as I have repeatedly told you. But that is another well researched and sound scientifically known fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

Try explaining how the structure that is the European Alps formed by an expanding earth. Ask yourself why the top of the Matterhorn is a huge chunk of gneiss, albeit somewhat ground down by glaciers and then the carbon cycle working with rain, winds and gravity to further errode, that could only have come from the African continent.

Here are some clues, not that I have not supplied many more over time:

On the other hand, what is causing a rise in atmospheric moisture levels is rising temperature. The energy stored is put into an accelerated hydrological cycle as people in Pakistan have discovered. Tropical storms over parts of the US have also intensified whilst other parts continue to desicate:

Most of this is true, or most of this is MOSTLY true, but the part that you, Omega, consistently fail to recognize is that the elite have hijacked the Green agenda to further their own goals. That is the problem ... not in your case specifically, but because it is a reflection of something much wider and bigger that is going on. That having been said, to fall into their trap will do nothing to protect dying species or the planet, whether the "planet" is in any sort of danger or not. Because the hijackers aren't interested in saving wildlife ... they're interested in setting up the funding of mechanisms for international governance. Check out WWF, their history and who they really represent. Do they really have an interest in protecting wildlife? Or in snapping up African property with precious metals under it?

People say, "think globally, act Locally". I say, "Think and act "Locally", and f&#k anything with the term "Global" attached to it, because anything these days termed "global" means the 'Global elite' and their "One-world-government" agenda. Jeeeze, I almost sound like a "conspiracy-theorist". Hey, that's because there is a very dangerous and very real conspiracy at foot. Omega, if you are with "us", ... please quit being a megaphone for the elite.

Insrtead you repeat stuff I have debunked backed with evidence and you provide a singular lack of support for your erroneous ideas as with this:

The reason that you see lower tides in your local is because the land is rising as the Pacific plate subducts beneath, as I have repeatedly told you. But that is another well researched and sound scientifically known fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

Try explaining how the structure that is the European Alps formed by an expanding earth. Ask yourself why the top of the Matterhorn is a huge chunk of gneiss, albeit somewhat ground down by glaciers and then the carbon cycle working with rain, winds and gravity to further errode, that could only have come from the African continent.

Here are some clues, not that I have not supplied many more over time:

On the other hand, what is causing a rise in atmospheric moisture levels is rising temperature. The energy stored is put into an accelerated hydrological cycle as people in Pakistan have discovered. Tropical storms over parts of the US have also intensified whilst other parts continue to desicate:

Lunk, it would make a change if you tried to grasp these topics rather than evading and repeating unsupported nonsense dressed up as verse.

On the rate of species going extinct, do they name them all?

On the North Pacific gyre and the plastic garbage patch, Yes, i've heard of it, thanks for the video link.Is that mostly product packaging? Probably loaded with bis-phenol-A. Ugh. Ya, there is no need for all that crap floating there.

On the closing of the Stephen Schneider thread, May he rest in peace.

Sorry, i just didn't feel right about typing so much in that venue. That's just me.

People say, "think globally, act Locally". I say, "Think and act "Locally", and f&#k anything with the term "Global" attached to it, because anything these days termed "global" means the 'Global elite' and their "One-world-government" agenda.

Not necessarily. Some problems have become global in nature and the pollution from consumerism and industrialization is the biggest because it encompasses plastics and GHGs besides nitrous oxides and many, many other toxic substances.

Oh! And pertinently to your argument such consumerism has led to the very land grab for specialised minerals so essential in the production of TFT screens amongst many other products.

Global problems require a global solution.

What would you do if somebody dumped their garbage on your patch?

QUOTE

Jeeeze, I almost sound like a "conspiracy-theorist". Hey, that's because there is a very dangerous and very real conspiracy at foot. Omega, if you are with "us", ... please quit being a megaphone for the elite.

Me the megaphone for the elite. Sheeesh! That is ironic considering that what you believe is the propaganda that has been pushed by the same who pushed against 9/11 truth. The Murdoch Media in the US as Fox, the UK Times and Daily Mail and in Australia The Australian to name but a few.

They are all a part of the echo chamber that has been undermining the climate change message or maybe Glenn Beck is a good guy because he does this. Is that your take? You have been duped into crying for no action to be taken. This is one sure way to make absolutely certain that those concentration camps will be required for control of climate migrants.

Migrants made that way by repeated flooding from storms or sea level rise, the failure of crops from drought or incoming pests propelled there by a changing climate withany such events will be compounded. These migrations will affect every nation, nobody will be immune to the scale of change already built into climate.

Put as much effort into studying what is happening to the Earth's systems because of human activity as you have into that Dragon Blood Line and you will begin to understand.

The article I linked to above would be a start, read some of the comments these are not from the elite:

Mike Roddy says: November 10, 2010 at 8:48 amIf you totally commit to solving the problem of global warming, you also slow species extinction, and vice versa. Deforestation, including here in North America, chemical/fossil fuel industrial agriculture, profligate burning of fossil fuels, and livestock feed lots are dumb and doomed activities that both murder entire species and send massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It all goes together, and springs from a sick modern urge to dominate nature and collect meaningless material comforts.

When I was a young man over 30 years ago, I quit my job to become a whitewater river guide for a few years. My favorite place was the little traveled Klamath in Northern California, because we saw so much wildlife- herons, bald eagles, otters, osprey, bear, and mergansers. Salmon and steelhead were the basis of the food chain. Now, the once greatest fish migration and wildlife show south of the Columbia has dwindled to a shadow of itself, because of logging’s effects on spawning habitat and stream temperatures, dams, and upstream ag diversions. I can hardly stand to float the river anymore, because it has become so barren by comparison.

Two of the dams are scheduled for removal, and logging in the area has slowed, but fish dieoffs caused by bathtub summer water temperatures will persist as it continues to get warm. Then, not only no more spectacular ecosystem, no more wild seafood, either. We are on a suicide mission, slow in human time, lightning fast in geologic time.

This all has to be addressed holistically, and from within, and Richard Brenne says it well. Sailesh Rao may be the best voice on the kind of transformation we need, and I advise readers here to heed his words.

Sanders, are you aware that the erosion rate, because of an increase in the power behind the hydrological, as well as increased acidity, and volumes of glacial melt-water, of the European Alps has increased over the last hundred years? When ice bound rock thaws it disintegrates and gravity takes over with tons more of the stuff falling year on year.

Similar processes in the US and South America will set in train many 'natural' disasters.

Understand that these things are playing out now and if we do nothing it can only get worse.

This is not a conspiracy - the natural world doesn't understand conspiracies and takes no notice of them. That this year summer saw the lowest volumes of ice on record in the Arctic is proof of that. You don't believe me then take a look at this:

Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen joins us to discuss the state of the climate change debate, the lack of evidence for catastrophic warming and what the science really tells us.

i suppose they predicted the weather today pretty accurately, i think at after 3 days and it starts getting closer to a coin toss. if we can't predict much more than 3 days, how can we even get to the century scale of climate with any accuracy at all?!

i was hoping for a mild winter and thinking about preparing for a sudden melting of the poles, but firewood was more of a priority, this year, so far.

I rented "Collapse" from Netflix last week. As I have mentioned before I credit Mike Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" with starting me down the road to where I am now in 9/11 Truth. The film is basically a prompted monologue by Mike about the forces that have shaped our current circumstances and continue to shape them. Mike's trajectory has been somewhat erratic over the past several years, culminating ( I thought) in a very public retirement from public life, complete with disclaimers indicating that he was out of the business of providing prognostication and analysis.

Turns out, not so much. He is not a "truther" in fact he does not see 9/11 truth as being a worthy pursuit, saying it has been so corrupted by disinformation that it won't achieve anything. The US Government is not going to investigate itself, nor will it let anyone else investigate it in any meaningful sense. Fuggedaboudit. Instead he has refocused on peak oil and the resultant collapse that appears imminent.

The issue for me is not whether collapse will occur but the speed of the collapse and timing. The financial weirdness looks to me like the scrambling around of very venel and crooked men to amass a fortune they think will insulate them from the effects of a world-wide financial meltdown. So it appears something is coming, it's unprecedented, and it looks a lot like the effects one might expect from a catastrophic decline in energy resources - a world-wide depression. Mike certainly appears sincere, and I recommend the film. I also know that Mike has a number of detractors in this forum. His is a point of view that makes as much sense as anything I have seen recently. Let me know what you think.

if we can't predict much more than 3 days, how can we even get to the century scale of climate with any accuracy at all?!

bravo!

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Nov 24 2010, 01:19 AM)

As I have mentioned before I credit Mike Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" with starting me down the road to where I am now in 9/11 Truth.

Instead he has refocused on peak oil and the resultant collapse that appears imminent.

i also read 'crossing the rubicon' and found it informative to a degree. he had a video i saw once where he deconstructed 9/11 from a detective's point of view. it was very good. sometimes it's not hard to get disillusioned w/ the prospects for justice. as far as peak oil goes, it depends on what the 'agenda' is. there has been talk in the past about abiotic oil, the huge gull island oil field as well as the field ( i forget the name) that covers part of wyoming and montana. also some huge field off the coast of brazil and so on etc. question becomes, who do you trust? i have been a proponent of solar power for many years. probably 30 years ago, a big manufacturer of solar cells called solarex was bought by mobil oil and r&d by solarex abruptly stopped. just one county in texas covered w/ solar cells would produce enough energy for the us' needs ( yes, there would be considerations like storage, maintenance, distribution etc). just data points.

so what is the agenda (think quigley, cfr, riia, club of rome, agenda 21, 1984, brave new world etc)? the rabbit hole is deep, but we have many eyes

The 1991 Science paper by Friis-Christensen & Lassen, work by Henrik Svensmark (Physical Review Letters), and calculations done by Scafetta & West (in the journals Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, and Physics Today) have inspired the idea that the recent warming is due to changes in the sun, rather than greenhouse gases.

We have discussed these papers before here on RealClimate (here, here, and here), and I think it’s fair to say that these studies have been fairly influential one way or the other. But has anybody ever seen the details of the methods used, or the data? I believe that a full disclosure of their codes and data would really boost the confidence in their work, if they were sound. So if they believe so strongly that their work is solid, why not more transparency?

There is a recent story in the British paper The Independent, where Friis-Christensen and Svensmark responded to the criticism forwarded by Peter Laut (here). All this would perhaps be unnecessary if they had disclosed their codes and data.

Gavin and I published a paper in Journal of Geophysical Research, where we tested the general approach used by Scafetta & West, and tried to repeat their analysis. We were up-front about our lack of success in a 100% replication of their work, but we argue that the any pronounced effect – as claimed by Scafetta & West – should be detectable even if the set-up is not 100% identical.

However, Scafetta does not accept our analysis and has criticized me for lacking knowledge about wavelet analysis – he tells me to read the text books. So I asked him to post his code openly on the Internet so that others could repeat our test with their code. That should settle our controversy.

After repeated requests, he told me that he doesn’t really understand why I’m not able to write my own program to reproduce the calculations (actually, I did in the paper together with Gavin, but Scafetta wouldn’t accept our analysis), and keeps insulting me by telling me to take a course on wavelet analysis. Furthermore, he stated that there “are several other and even more serious problems” in our work. I figure then that the easiest way to get to the bottom of this issue it to repeat our tests with his code.

A replication in general doesn’t require full disclosure of source code because the description in the paper should be sufficient, though in this case it clearly wasn’t. So to both save having us do it again and perhaps miss some other little detail – in addition to using an algorithm that Scafetta is happy with – it’s worth getting the code with which to validate our efforts.

It should be a common courtesy to provide methods requested by other scientists in order to speedily get to the essence of the issue, and not to waste time with the minutiae of which year is picked to end the analysis.

The reason why Gavin and I were not able to repeat Scafetta’s analysis in exact details is that his papers didn’t disclose all the necessary details. The first point he raised was that we used periodic instead of reflection boundaries. The fact that the paper referred to the expression ‘1/2 A sin (2 pi t)’ to describe the temperatures or solar forcing would normally suggest that they used periodic rather than reflection boundaries. There was no information in the paper about reflection boundary. But this is no big deal, as we have subsequently repeated the analysis with reflection boundary, and that doesn’t alter our conclusions.

After further communication, we found out that Scafetta re-sampled the data in such a way that the center of the wavelet band pass filter was located exactly on the 11 and 22 year solar cycles, which were the frequencies of interest. He also informed me that a reasonable choice of the year when the reflection boudary was made should be the year 2002-3 when the sun experienced a maximum for both the 11 and 22 year cycles. This information was not provided in the papers.

I’m no psychic, so I couldn’t have guessed that all this was needed to reproduce his result. But since Scafetta has lost faith in my ability to repeat his work, I think it’s even a greater reason to disclose his code so that others can have a go.

For the record, we did not just use wavelets to filter the data – we obtained the same conclusion with an ordinary band-pass filter.

Clearly you have not read:

The Long Thaw

and

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

by David Archer

Climate Change a Multidisciplinary Approach

by William James Burroughs

for if you had you would already be aware that Sevensmark's assessment does not fit in with reality on earth (Burroughs page 169). This you will find I have already discussed and also that the Jarowoski article is another dud!

Jaworowski is not a name unfamiliar in the field of straw that deniers/delayers like to grasp at:

One day some of you around here will do a more thorough study to discover who is offering the true scientific insights and who is full of, well, er, um, dark brown smelly stuff and not grasp at any old straw.

.... as far as peak oil goes, it depends on what the 'agenda' is. there has been talk in the past about abiotic oil, the huge gull island oil field as well as the field ( i forget the name) that covers part of wyoming and montana. also some huge field off the coast of brazil and so on etc. question becomes, who do you trust? .

I will just add that I have been looking at the Peak Oil issue for a little longer than I have been studying 9/11. The global competition for resources, particularly oil, makes sense to me [edit: as a motive for the developments in the current century.] The main reason I think abiotic oil doesn't make sense (nor does it offer any hope) is that no matter how oil is created, all the easy to get oil is pretty much used up. Would they be doing risky and difficult drilling such as the deepwater horizon well that went so horribly wrong in the Gulf if they didn't have to? An integral part of the Peak Oil scenario is the rising cost of finding and exploiting oil, and as it approaches a 1:1 cost of recovery:value of oil (expressed not in dollars but in equivalent energy) risk is amplified and return on investment runs very close to the line. The human race has been using oil at an increasing rate for just over a hundred years. I figure that if abiotic oil were being produced at anything even fractionally able to satisfy demand, in all the billions of years of Earth's existence, enough would have been produced to pretty much inundate the planet. Instead, every major producer has peaked and is declining at about 9% and each find is smaller or less productive than the previous ones. American production continues to decline year over year. As for the oil shale and oil sands, those recovery methods require so much natural gas, water, and environmental destruction that it appears the worst thing we could do from an environmental perspective is widen the use of those methods. The peak oil deniers, from what I have seen, all seem to be wedded in some way to those with a deep financial interest in continuing the energy status quo.

There appears to be no way out of this box. The human race has approached nearly 7 billion units due to the availability of cheap oil. The population isn't sustainable without it, and it when we start down the other side of the curve, the human cost is going to be horrendous. That's the point Ruppert is making in "Collapse". Since we use about a quarter of oil resources with about 5% of the world population, we are likely to suffer more than those who currently get along on almost no oil. We have been flogging agribusiness - oil and gas-dependent food production instead of organic methods, which would mitigate the coming food crisis. (Ruppert mentions Cuba in this regard, and their reaction when they lost most of their oil supply with the collapse of the Soviets) They survived by very rapid adoption of organic farming methods and land reform to exploit arable land for food production. They didn't get any help from us, of course)

That's how I see it. The Big Agenda seems related to making as much money as fast as they can to insulate the elite from the worst effects of the coming crash. It bothers me a great deal that the term "useless eaters" (used by Henry Kissinger to describe the non-elite population) betrays a mind-set that implies all kinds of bad things for those not in the "big club".

I certainly plan to, also to catch up on a couple of posts up stream, but am contending with a number of situations right now.

For now I consider abiotic oil most unlikely considering the chemistry required, chemistry that has its roots in biological organisms. If somebody can come up with a good explanation of the physical and chemical process that produce abiotic oil then I may be swayed, but I am not holding my breath. Now we know that small organisms have been discovered in deep rock but that does not make any oil produced from such abiotic.

The increased use of fracking has already poisoned water courses that many relie on, not just for personal use but for irrigation of crops and supporting livestock. The sports fishermen are beginning to see changes in water from temperature rises and pH changes too.

Fossil fuels are dirty, end of. With coal and tar-sands production being the dirtiest.

On Ruppert, I have his book for some time and have read it a couple of times and occasionaly dip in again. He makes allot of sense.

Collapse looks interesting. Have you come across that other Collapse?:

Gold is OK as a hedge if you can afford it I suppose, I cannot. Switzerland is looking pretty comfortable on that score (see 'Blood Money:The Swiss, The Nazis and the Looted Billions' by Tom Bower 1997, but you won't find this on Amazon for some reason and they have recently come up trumps with a few rare books second hand on maritime history for me).

But then one cannot eat gold and if the Amazon (river not online shopping) is in decline as well as Arctic sea ice then we are in dire do-do:

Now what was all that brouhaha about Amozongate? Same crap going on as with Glaciergate and Climategate, that latter being a spoiler for Copenhagen last year. What will they try to do for Cancun this year I wonder? I note TVMOB (Monckton) and Roy Spencer are going according to a blurb with the usual Monckton qualification BS:

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has been a leader of CFACT's delegations to numerous UN summits. He has held positions with the British press and in government, as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office and as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor. Monckton advised Thatcher on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics, psephological modeling; embryological research, hydrogeology, public-service investment analysis, public welfare modeling, and epidemiological analysis. He is author of a detailed analysis and summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes' Fourth Assessment Report.

Dr Richard Lindzen is a respected member of the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. He has led a distinguished career since the 1960's, publishing hundreds of peer-reviewed articles studying and modeling Earth's atmosphere, receiving numerous awards and being selected for membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. As a professor of meteorology and particularly with the studies of radiative and dynamical atmospheric processes that he has conducted, he certainly qualifies as an eminent climate scientist. He is also well-known as being skeptical about climate "alarmism", arguing that feedback effects are much smaller than most other scientists have assessed. At #136 on Jim Prall's list of most cited authors on climate change he is the third-highest-rated of the "skeptics" (after Roger Pielke Sr. and Freeman Dyson).

All of that is fine. While 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for significant climate change, there are still those 3% who disagree. [UPDATE The exact survey wording on the question was "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures" - which is a slightly different emphasis than my paraphrase (but is it "significant"?), and I apologize for any confusion caused]. Their arguments to the extent they are logical and have any scientific merit should be heard. Lindzen continues to publish in scientific journals, and while some of his recent papers have been greatly flawed, at least he's continuing to actively try to put forth his position in a logical and scientific manner.

But he also has other ambitions. Lindzen's current publication list includes two 2006 Wall Street Journal opinion pieces - "Climate of Fear" from April 2006, and "There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming" from June of that year. This past December Lindzen returned to the Wall Street Journal with The Climate Science Isn't Settled, and now celebrating Earth Day, April 22, 2010 we find Climate Science in Denial (subscription required). Both of these opinion pieces are filled with egregious misrepresentations of the facts, statements I find shocking coming from such a respected scientist. From his latest piece one can only conclude that either Lindzen has descended into the epistemic closure of paranoia and conspiracy theories that has become far too prevalent among some Americans lately or, worse, that he is consciously participating in the malicious disinformation campaign on climate that has recently been extensively documented by Greenpeace and elsewhere.

Either way, given that Penn State was forced to investigate complaints about Michael Mann's scientific work, continued congressional attacks on climate scientists, and the several investigations in England over the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, I want to know when MIT will initiate an investigation of Richard Lindzen's recent output, and whether he is, inadvertently or deliberately, dragging the good name of that institution through the mud.

And I would also like to know when, for balance, the Wall Street Journal plans to run the over 100 op-ed pieces it owes to the 97% of climate scientists who understand the impact of humans on our planet, given these 4 pieces it has already run by Lindzen. I'm not going to hold my breath for Rupert Murdoch though.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology atMIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used byindustry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant toaddress the looming environmental crisis.

Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before aSenate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote,entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged ScientificConsensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]

According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- includingDr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S.Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science isuntainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-fundedcampaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeableornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion throughthe media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world'sscientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussionfocused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they haveeffectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]

External links

* Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On: The warming of the world'sclimate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.* Daniel Grossman, Dissent in the Maelstrom,"Scientific American,November 2001.* "Richard Lindzen," Wikipedia.

... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know thatthe march of science, and of political action, may be slowed bydisinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oilindustry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, hasspent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climatechange. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year.Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 onthe global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the AmericanPetroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of theGCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossilfuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combinedyearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmentalgroups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, accordingto officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural ResourcesDefense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists,and the World Wildlife Fund.

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr.Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have provenextraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio andtelevision, they have helped to create the illusion that the questionis hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been theirinfluence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowedconservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.,Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap"and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts tothose government science programs designed to monitor the health ofthe planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine theenvironmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of theskeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expertwitnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.[#1] ...

[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce anddistribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which wasshown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within thegovernments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promisesthat a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasingconcentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areasof desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of newgrasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by anurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Expertsnote that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger anexplosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentiallysignificant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well asto a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels'video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may betrying to tell them now.]

Watch Lindzen and other delayers in action here, and pay attention to the rubbish spouted by Ralph Hall (of Texas) with the drive by on Climategate and Dana Rorabacher (California). I doubt Hall has any recollection of what he read out and Rorabacher is clearly unaware of how stupid he sounds (nearly as bad as Shimkus elsewhere who mooted that god will look after the planet and prevent humans FUBARing it - well the planet will simply shed humans if push comes to shove):

Also stick around for the exchanges after each panel has finished its presentation, particularly the sparing match between Pat Michaels and Ben Santer after panel two's testimonies.

The third consists essentially of free riding. Here the emphasis is on what are euphemisticallycalled impacts. The specialties of the scientists involved lie well outside of climate physics, butthey can find funding and recognition by attempting to relate their specialty to global warming.Their ‘results’ are to be found in the newspapers every day. Cockroaches and malaria spreading,sex drive of butterflies diminishing, polar bears in potential danger, etc. From the point of viewof serious science, this group is mostly a nuisance, but they play a major role in the maintenanceof alarm. They also artificially swell the numbers of scientists who endorse the alarmist view.

Sorry but with that statement Lindzen reveals himself as despicable for casting aspersions at all those courageous field workers gather data on ecological systems from dangerous and uncomfortable environments. Sure they are a nuisance to the likes of Lindzen for they reveal how vapid are his assertions about a lack of knowable warming and that there is not a problem to be concerned about.

Lindzen is a narrow minded physicist, thankfully not all physicists are like him, probably because they are not so betoken to F-cubed sources of income. Lindzen has pasted himself into a corner and cannot now get out and so continues with his own peculiar brand of delayer disinformation.

EDIT:

In his introductory speech to the House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change Science linked to above Brian Baird mentioned a Dr Mahoney, the following may be of interest:

I watched how uncomfortable once skeptical Christy was in a Panorama programme broadcast earlier this year and how he placed the marker for climate change attribution mostly on the human side. It seems that even one time colleagues are treating Lindzen as poison.

Moderate La Niña conditions and with some waters cooled by melting ice has displaced jet streams giving a blocking high over the North Atlantic and funneling north winds down over warmer seas around Britain giving us the current cold spell with snow.

Some get colder and others warmer, some wetter and others drier than usual - that's climate change.

Probably going to be more accurate than WUWT (aka We Use Wishful Thinking) forecasts for Arctic sea ice minimum extent over this last summer. Note the difference between extent and area and then factor in thickness.

Whilst on ice, there is a certain South American glacier that has vanished ahead of expected by some glaciologists as melting rate tripled. There, that is a little home work assignment for you - name the glacier and elaborate.